PERCEIVED ORGANIZATIONAL SUPPORT AND ORGANIZATIONAL

CITIZENSHIP BEHAVIOR: THE MEDIATING ROLE OF PSYCHOLOGICAL

CAPITAL

Abdul Mutalib Mohamed Azim, Mohd Taib Dora

Kolej Universiti Islam Melaka

Melaka, Malaysia

Email: mutalib.azim@kuim.edu.my, mohdtaib@kuim.edu.my

ABSTRACT

The present study was conducted to identify the mediating role of psychological capital in the

relationship between Perceived Organizational Support (POS) and Organizational Citizenship

Behavior (OCB) among employees of multimedia organizations in Malaysia. Data collection

was done through personally administered questionnaires from 350 employees. The statistical

analysis namely Correlation analysis, Confirmatory Factor Analysis and Structural Equation

Modelling were executed. Results found positive and significant relationship between POS and

OCB, a positive relationship between POS and psychological capital, and psychological

capital towards OCB. Finally, psychological capital fully mediated the relationship between

POS and OCB. The study makes a significant and unique contribution to literature by showing

the mediation effect of psychological capital in the relationship between POS and OCB.

Present study's results demonstrated that the employees’ perception of organization support,

can enhance employee's psychological capital which in turn effect OCB.

KEYWORDS: psychological capital, perceived organizational support, organizational

citizenship behavior

1.0 INTRODUCTION

Organizational Citizenship Behavior (OCB), has been a focus subject by researchers due to

increasing empirical evidence of OCB’s impact on individual and organizational performance

(Podsakoff, Whiting, Podsakoff & Blume, 2009; Martíneza & Tindalea, 2015). OCB has been

defined as “individual behavior that is discretionary, not directly or explicitly recognized by

the formal reward system and that in aggregate promotes the effective functioning of the

organization” (Organ 1988, p.4). OCB has the potential to increase organization efficiency by

enhancing employee productivity and task performance (e.g., Organ, 1997; Podsakoff

MacKenzie, Paine & Bachrach, 2000; Ranjbar, Zamani & Amiri, 2014). Recognizing the

association of OCB with organizational and individual outcomes, scientific study has

investigated antecedents of OCB. Podsakoff et al. (2000) noted that majority of research on

OCB have devoted to four major types of antecedents consisting of leadership behaviors,

organizational characteristics, individual characteristics and job characteristics. Organ and

Ryan (1995) suggested that some of the organizational factors that have been found to influence

OCB include job attitudes (organizational commitment, job satisfaction, leader supportiveness

and perceived fairness), role perceptions (role ambiguity and role conflict) and personality

traits (agreeableness, conscientiousness, negative affectivity and positive affectivity). Later, a

meta-analysis by LePine, Erez and Johnson (2002) on OCB studies similarly found that besides

CORE Metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk

Provided by Universiti Teknikal Malaysia Melaka: UTeM Open Journal System

antecedents such as commitment, satisfaction, leader support and fairness, conscientiousness

as an individual characteristic has often been examined by researchers in studies on predictors

of OCB. Despite the superior focus of foregoing studies on individual characteristics and

organizational factors, little is known about the potential effect of psychological factor such as

psychological capital on OCB. Psychological capital which involves employees’ positive-

oriented psychology development situation, includes four components of individual positive

traits namely self-efficacy, hope, optimism and resiliency (Luthans, Avolio, Avey & Norman

2007) began to be viewed as a new perspective towards understanding employee behavior

including OCB.

OCB may be enhanced when employee perceived that organizational support exists through

the creation of psychological capital (e.g., psychological capital is enhanced through the

strengthening of employees’ feelings of perceived organizational support (POS), where

employees start to feel hopeful about their future, optimistic about their careers, resilient and

efficacious about their potential and their ability to do well in their jobs) (Caza, McCarter,

Hargrove & Wad, 2009). Perceived Organizational Support (POS) signal to the employees the

organization’s support in employees’ development, recognition of their contribution, and care

for their well-being (Eisenberger, Huntington, Hutchison, & Sowa, 1986). These POS send a

message to the employees that the organization views them as a strategic resource, and an

accumulation over time of favourable treatments makes employees perceive that they are

receiving a high level of support from the organization (Chuang & Liao, 2010; Hui, Cao, Lou

& He, 2014 ). This can help in creating a positive psychological climate (James, Choi, Ko,

McNeil, Minton, Wright & Kim, 2008) and with such a psychological climate set up,

employees are going to enhance their psychological capital. Previous studies support

relationship between POS and psychological capital (Hui et al., 2014; Sihag & Sarikwal, 2015).

Thus, this paper suggests the POS that focus on the employee’s development, recognition of

their contribution, and care for their well-being will create a conducive environment for the

development of psychological capital and can foster positive employee attitudes which enhance

OCB in the workplace.

Social exchange theory has been used to describe the factors that lead to OCB (e.g. Organ &

Paine, 1999; Nandan & Azim, 2015) as an employee need to reciprocate through positive

behavior when organizations support their employees (Konovsky & Pugh, 1994; Spector &

Che, 2014). This theory propose that the employees who perceive higher support, care and

value from organization (such as POS), are assumed to reciprocate more by showing positive

behavior such as psychological capital and thus build higher level of OCB. Not many studies

examine the psychological capital as mediator in the relationship between POS and OCB.

Singh and Singh (2013) used personality as mediator in studying relationship between POS and

OCB. Meanwhile, Sidra, Imran and Adnan (2016) examine the moderation role of

psychological capital in the relationship between POS and OCB. Other studies only examined

the direct relationship between the POS and the psychological capital (e.g. Hui et al., 2014;

Sihag & Sarikwal, 2015). In addition, previous study found POS sometimes has either correlate

insignificantly or negatively on positive behavior such as organizational commitment

(O’Driscoll & Randall, 1999; Aube, Rousseau & Morin, 2007; Colakoglu, Culha & Atay,

2010). Given the possibility of negative impacts on OCB (positive behavior), this paper

suggests that the psychological capital as an intermediating variable that has the potential to

mitigate the negative effects of POS towards OCB.

Considering studies on the psychological capital as mediator is limited, this paper intends to

propose a framework on the effect of psychological capital as mediator, on the relationship

between POS and OCB using social exchange theory, organizational support theory and

previous empirical literature, as a foundation. It addresses the need to integrate POS and

psychological capital with organizational behavior, namely OCB, in a framework which could

be used by researchers to better understand OCB. It is hoped that the model developed in this

study would increase to the shortfall of empirical evidence on how POS is linked to OCB

through psychological capital. It would help organizations in understanding the role of POS

and psychological capital in enhancing employee’s OCB.

2.0 PERCEIVED ORGANIZATIONAL SUPPORT (POS) AND

ORGANIZATIONAL CITIZENSHIP BEHAVIORS (OCB)

Several researches has study the impact of POS towards OCB. Based on Rhoades and

Eisenberger (2002), POS is an organization’s willingness to support employees in terms of

appreciates their contributions and care about their well-being. As an exchange, employees will

show their positive behaviour that benefits the organization. This is parallel with social

exchange theory which suggests that through mutual exchanges, a pattern of reciprocal

obligation is established between the parties (Blau, 1964). Support by organization is assumed

to produce open end social exchange relationships, these types of relationship will result in

obligations for the employee to repay the organization by showing positive behavior such as

OCB. In accordance with Kim, Eisenberger and Baik (2016), good perceived organizational

treatment motivates employees to boost their efforts in assisting the achievement of

organizational goals and objectives. Such as this view, employees tent to reciprocate POS with

the display of OCB directed toward the organization (Wayne, Shore, Bommer, & Tetrick, 2002;

Asgari, Silong, Ahmad, & Samah, 2008).

Other studies also support the relationship between POS and OCB. Duffy and Lilly (2013)

conducted a research and found that medium levels of demand for power and success

influenced the relationship between POS and OCB. Results indicated that POS and

psychological empowerment both positively affected OCB (Chiang & Hsieh, 2012). Jain, Giga

and Cooper (2013) found a significant positive relationship between POS and OCB. The results

from a research conducted by Muhammad (2014) showed that POS is positively related to OCB

in nine business organizations in the State of Kuwait. The results from a research accomplished

by Jebeli and Etebarian (2015) showed that there was a significant positive relationship

between POS and OCB. Thus, this paper hypothesizes that the extent to which an employee

perceives that organization provides support will affect the employee’s citizenship behaviors:

H1: Perceived organizational support (POS) significantly correlate to organizational citizenship

behaviors (OCB).

2.1 Perceived Organizational Support (POS) and Psychological Capital

POS and psychological capital both constructs were studied together in only limited studies.

Only few studies showed the relationship between POS and psychological capital of employees

(Sihag & Sarikwal, 2015). POS send a message to employees that the organization has support

them in terms of employees’ development, appreciation of employees contribution, and

concern of their well-being (Eisenberger et al., 1986; Chuang & Liao, 2010). This type of

support can develop the positive psychology that concerned with devote on employee’s

positive elements (like hope, optimism, calm and self-confidence). It is also concentrated on

employee’s development, growth and enthusiasm. Thus, this condition of organization climate

can help in creating a positive psychological climate (James, Choi, Ko, McNeil, Minton,

Wright & Kim, 2008) and with such a positive psychological climate set up, employees are

likely to enhance their positive organization behaviour (POB). POB can be defined as, “the

study and application of positively oriented human resource strengths and psychological

capacities that can be measured, developed, and effectively managed for performance

improvement in today’s workplace” (Luthans, 2002, p. 59). The POB scientific criteria are

basically consist of four psychological resources and were termed as psychological capital

(Luthans & Youssef, 2004). Empirical studies have found the significant effect of POS towards

psychological capital. Hui et al. (2014) found the positive impact of POS on four dimensions

of psychological capital (hope, optimism, calm and self-confidence) in Chinese cultural

context. Sihag and Sarikwal (2015) conducted a study of IT industries in Indian also found a

significant impact of POS towards psychological capital. Hence, following hypothesis is

developed:

H2: Perceived organizational support (POS) significantly correlate to psychological capital.

2.2 Psychological Capital and Organizational Citizenship Behaviors (OCB)

Psychological capital is among a new study aspects of interest to researchers of human capital

and organizational behavior (Avey, Reichard, Luthans, & Mhatre, 2011; Qadeer & Jaffery,

2014). Luthans (2002) have developed a principal element mainly termed as psychological

capital. Luthans and Youssef (2004) defined psychological capital as a person’s constructive

and positive state of development and growth that is consisting of hope, efficacy, resilience

and optimism. The element of “hope” (motivation to complete goals), “optimism” (confidence

in the positive result of future events), “resilience” (The ability to face adverse or risky

conditions in a sustained way) and “efficacy” (certainty about individual capacity to achieve

the objectives that have been set).

Empirical studies have proven the relationship between psychological capital and OCB. Avey,

Wernsing & Luthans (2008) discovered that psychological capital was associated with OCB.

Shahnawaz and Jafri (2009) discovered that the psychological capital predict OCB both in

private and public organizations in India. Norman, Avey, Nimnicht and Pigeon (2010)

indicated psychological capital as being a positive predictor of OCB. Golestaneh (2014) also

revealed that there was clearly a significant effect of psychological capital towards OCB.

Recently, Pradhan, Jena and Bhattacharya (2016) also found psychological capital was

positively related to OCB in Indian manufacturing and service industries. Therefore, this study

proposes the hypothesis as follows:

H3: Psychological capital significantly correlate to organizational citizenship behaviors (OCB).

2.3 Psychological Capital as Mediator

According to Rhoades and Eisenberger (2002), organizational support theory grounded from

social exchange theory has been used to explain the effect of POS on individual’s behaviors.

Organizational support theory (Eisenberger et al., 1986; Shore & Shore, 1995) suggested that

through mutual exchanges, a pattern of reciprocal obligation is established between employee

and employer. The employees develop global beliefs regarding the extent to which the

organization values their contributions and cares about their well-being. As a result, individuals

develop a commitment to fulfill their obligations and the pattern of reciprocity is reinforced

(Cropanzano & Byrne, 2000). Furthermore, organizational support perceptions by employee

are assumed to reciprocate more by displaying higher engagement in positive behavior to

organization.

Psychological capital can be flourishing through the strengthening of employees’ perception

of organizational support. POS can encourage in creating a positive psychological climate and

with this condition, employees can enhance their psychological capital. This study propose the

POS that focus on the employee’s development, recognition of their contribution, and care for

their well-being will create a positive climate at workplace for the development of

psychological capital and can foster positive attitudes of employees at workplace such as OCB.

On the whole this study suggests that the psychological capital is known to have a possible

relationship with the POS and OCB. Figure 1 shows the research framework that develops

based on theory and literature review. However, whether this relationship will be mediated by

psychological capital or not has not been critically examined before, so, in order to provide

more theoretical knowledge and empirical evidence related to the discussed variables, the

researchers test the relationship predicted in following hypotheses:

H4: Psychological capital mediates relationship between perceived organizational support

(POS) and organizational citizenship behavior (OCB).

Figure 1: Research Framework

3.0 METHODOLOGY

3.1 Sampling

The sample of this study consisted of employees from six multimedia organizations in

Malaysia. The selection of employees is based on cluster sampling. This study employed self-

administered questionnaires as a means of data collection. Based on the number of respondents

(n = 350) with complete data in this study, this sample size is sufficiently large for the use of

SEM (Hair, Black, Babin & Anderson, 2010). Before proceeding to the final data collection, a

pilot study to test the reliability of the instrument was conducted to ensure the consistency of

the questionnaire. The Cronbach alpha reliability coefficients for all the three variables (POS,

psychological capital and OCB) exceed .70, indicating good internal consistency of the

measures (Hair et al., 2010).

3.2 Instrument

Scale 1: Psychological Capital was measured using 24 items developed by Luthan, Youssef

and Avolio (2007). This scale analyzed four dimensions of Psychological Capital: Hope (e.g. I have the patience to achieve the work objectives), Optimism (e.g. always feel that the good

thing is more than the bad in the work), self-efficacy (e.g. I am confident to discuss my work

in the meeting) and resilience (e.g. I can overcome the bad emotions in the work, and maintain

it stable). Each dimension has 6 items. This is a 5 point scale and scores on the scale varies

from 1= strongly disagree to 5= strongly agree.

Scale 2: Perceived Organizational Support (POS): This scale was developed by Rhoades,

Eisenberger, and Armeli, (2001). Originally, POS have 8 items, however, for this study; two

items were omitted due to low factor loading. Therefore, this study used only 6 items to

measure organization’s willingness to support employees and fulfill their socio emotional

needs. Illustrative items are: “My organization is willing to help me if I need a special favor”,

“My organization would forgive an honest mistake on my part”, “If given the opportunity, my

organization would take advantage of me (R)”; “My organization shows little concern for me

(R)”; Ratings were made on a five-point Likert type scale that ranged from 1 (“Strongly

disagree) to 5 (“strongly agree”).

Scale 3: Organizational Citizenship Behavior scale developed by Williams and Anderson,

(1991) was used in this study. This scale consisted of 7 items; however, one item was dropped

due to low factor loading. These instruments which ask respondents about behavior that

immediately benefit specific individuals and indirectly through this means contribute to the

organization. Examples of question “Willingly give your time to help others who have work-

related problems” and “Adjust your work schedule to accommodate other employees’ requests

for time off.” A five-point Likert scale ranging from strongly disagree (1) to strongly agree (5)

was used.

4.0 RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS

According to Hair et al. (2010), delete the item that has a low factor loading smaller than 0.50.

In this research, two items from POS and one item of OCB were omitted because of the factor

loading less than .50. To test convergent validity, this paper used Average Variance Extracted

(AVE) and Construct Reliability (CR). According to Fornell and Larcker (1981) and Hair et

al., (2010) the AVE value should be bigger than 0.5, and CR greater than 0.7, based on the

result, AVE value more than 0.70 and CR value more than 0.5. The outputs of reliability values

ranged from .758 to .845, which greater than the value of .70, suggested good condition of

Cronbach's alpha. Discriminant validity denotes that different constructs should not be very

highly correlated. Byren (2010) suggested that the r =.90 or above indicated that the variable

very highly correlated. Since the results are shown in Table 1, the correlation result ranged

from .385 to .565 means the variable not highly correlated means no issues of multicollinearity.

Table 1: Average Variance Extracted, Construct Reliability, Reliability and Correlations

Latent variables Items AVE CR α POS PsyCap OCB

POS 6 0.584 0.830 .845 1

PsyCap 24 0.551 0.830 .826 .556 1

OCB 7 0.560 0.770 .758 .385 .565 1

Note: POS = Perceived Organizational Support, PsyCap = Psychological Capital, OCB = Organizational

Citizenship Behavior, AVE = Average Variance Extracted, CR = construct reliability, α = Cronbach's alpha

The confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was carried out to determine the degree of model fit.

Based on CFA result, the model was fitted as shown in Table 2.

Table 2: Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA)

Description X2 CMINDF RMSEA GFI IFI TLI CFI PGFI

CFA model 305.395 3.054 .066 .922 .925 .909 .924 .678

The measurement model provided a better fit to the data with eight indicators (X2, CMINDF,

RMSEA, GFI, IFI, TLI, CFI and PDFI) as shown in Table 2. However, Marsh and Hau (1996)

suggested that the Chi-square (X2) value could be divided by the degree of freedom (df = 100)

for assessing model fit rather than using X2 (known as CMINDF). If this statistic calculation of

CMINDF is less than the value of five, the model fits reasonably well (Marsh & Hau, 1996).

The CMINDF for this measurement model was less than 5 (CMINDF = 3.054). Thus, the data

fit the CFA model relatively well. In addition, a RMSEA value of .066 which is less than .08

also suggested a model-data fit (Kline, 2010). The coefficients of the indices in the Table 2 are

all greater than .90 which is indicative of model fit (Byrne, 2010), and additionally, a PGFI

value greater than 0.5 (.678) suggests that the model fit the data (Hair, et al., 2010). Two items

namely OCB1 and OCB4 was combined due to higher M.I (Modification Indices) (M.I =

25.786). Figure 2 illustrate the CFA model of this study.

Figure 2: Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) Model

Figure 3 shows the regression analysis results using Structural Equation Modeling (SEM)

method. The regression analysis for direct relationship between POS and OCB has an R2 of

0.14. Adding Psychological capital to the model increases the value of R2 to 0.33. Thus, the

change in R2 associated with adding psychological capital is 0.19. The inclusion of

psychological capital in the model accounts for an additional 19% of the variance in OCB.

Accordingly, it suggests that the psychological capital plays an important mediating role in the

hypothesized model. In addition, the amount of variance explained for the endogenous

variables was 31% for psychological capital and 33% for OCB.

Figure 3: SEM (Estimated path coefficients of the partial mediation model)

Table 3: Partial, Indirect and Direct Model

Dependent Variables Independent Variables Partial Indirect Direct

PsyCap POS .556*** .565***

OCB POS .103 .380***

OCB PsyCap .507*** .575***

*** Sig. at .001; ** Sig. at .01 * Sig. at .05

Table 3 showed the results of standardized regression weight of the paths for the direct, indirect

and the partial mediation models. The result showed a significant relationship between POS

and OCB (β = .380; p < .001) in the direct model suggesting that the direct effect condition

was satisfied, supporting Hypothesis 1. For the indirect model, the findings showed a

significant path from POS to psychological capital (β = .565; p < .001) and from psychological

capital to OCB (β = .575; p < .001), supporting Hypothesis 2 and 3. Finally, the findings in the

partial mediation model showed that the direct influence of POS on OCB (β = .103; p = .106

bigger than .05), became insignificant when psychological capital was entered in the

relationship, suggesting that psychological capital fully mediated the relationship between POS

and OCB. Moreover, the partial model exhibited good fit indices compared to the other models.

These results confirm that the hypothesis 4 is supported.

Table 4: Bootstrapping

Constructs Bootstrap BC

95% CI

SIE SE LB UB p

POS .282 .054 .185 .401 .001

This study also runs bootstrapping in order to confirm the mediation effect of psychological

capital in this model. Based on the results in Table 4, this study found that the Standardized

Indirect Effects (SIE) value for POS (SIE = .282) is between Lower Bounds (LB = .185) and

Upper Bounds (UB = .401) as well as significant (p) values less than .05. This means a

significant mediating effect of psychological capital in the relationship between POS and OCB.

The findings of this study show the employees who perceive that they have the extent to which

the organization values employees’ contributions and cares about their well-being (Eisenberger

et al., 1986), demonstrate higher levels of OCB. It can be said that as the POS increases, the

degrees of OCB also increase as well. Other researchers (Duffy & Lilly, 2013; Muhammad,

2014; Jebeli & Etebarian, 2015) have also reported that POS is a significant predictor of OCB.

This means that the employees’ perceived that their organization support them, concern of their

well-being and employees future development that make employees fill more comfortable and

the employees tend show higher OCB.

The positive relationship between POS and psychological capital indicates the POS may

increase an employee’s perception that the organization has support them, which in turn

increase employees’ psychological capital. These findings are similar with the findings of Hui

et al. (2014) and Sihag and Sarikwal (2015), thus support hypothesis 2 of this study. The

hypothesis 3 also supported when this study found a significant relationship between

psychological capital and OCB, which is consistent with the results reported by previous

studies that examined relationship between psychological capital and OCB (Shahnawaz &

Jafri, 2009; Golestaneh, 2014: Pradhan et al., 2016). The results indicated that employees who

have high psychological capital in term of self-efficacy, hope, optimism and resiliency

(Luthans et al, 2007) report higher levels of OCB.

With regard to the mediating effect of psychological capital in the relationship POS and OCB,

the results show that employees with perception that their organization support them tend to

report higher psychological capital and this in turn increase their levels of OCB. Theoretically,

the findings have shown the social exchange theory that relies on the norm of reciprocity

exchange relationship can be used to explain the psychological capital process between the

employee and the organization. In situations where the organization support the employees in

providing their development, recognition of their contribution, and care for their well-being

(Eisenberger et al., 1986), employees’ develop psychological capital that in turn increase

employees’ OCB.

The findings of this study have important implications. Firstly, the results shed some light on

the existing relationships between POS, psychological capital and OCB. Specifically, the

findings of this study suggest that psychological capital have significant effects in the

relationship between POS and OCB. This indicates that psychological capital is an important

mechanism in understanding employment relationship. Secondly, the organization should take

proactive steps in providing support in terms of employee’s development, recognition of their

contribution, and care for their well-being so that the employees feel that the organization value

their contribution and concern about their well-being and hence display higher OCB.

Organizations have to realize the important of providing support such as organization

recognizes and rewards this favourable treatment as an indication that the organization concern

about employees and this will develop positive employee’s behavior.

This study is limited to examining employees’ POS, psychological capital and OCB of selected

multimedia organizations in Malaysia, so the generalization of the findings is limited to

multimedia organizations. The generalization can be enhanced if different organizations from

all over the country are included in such a research. The current research results cannot be

generalized to organizations other than multimedia organizations, which have entirely different

environment, procedures, organizational climates, regulations and rules. It is suggested to

integrate other organizational sectors such as telecommunication sector, education sector, civil

services and military services, so that discovery can be generalized throughout profession and

organizations.

5.0 CONCLUSIONS

In sum, the findings of this study suggest that psychological capital plays a critical role in

increasing employees’ OCB. The provision of POS such as employee’s development,

recognition of their contribution, and care for their well-being are vital since employees will

develop positive traits namely self-efficacy, hope, optimism and resiliency, and hence will

likely to exhibit higher OCB.

REFERENCES

Asgari, A., Silong, A. D., Ahmad, A., & Samah, B. A. (2008). The relationship between

leader-member exchange, organizational inflexibility, perceived organizational

support, interactional justice and organizational citizenship behavior. African Journal

of Business Management, 2, 138-145. ISSN 1993-8233

Aube, C., Rousseau, V., & Morin, M. E. (2007). Perceived organizational support and

organizational commitment: The moderating effect of locus of control and work

autonomy. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 22(5), 479-495. Doi:

10.1108/02683940710757209

Avey, J. B., Reichard, R. J., Luthans, F., & Mhatre, K. H. (2011). Meta-analysis of the impact

of positive psychological capital on employee attitudes, behaviors, and performance.

Human Resource Development Quarterly, 22, 127-152. Doi: 10.1002/hrdq.20070

Avey, J. B., Wernsing, T. S., & Luthans, F. (2008). Can Positive Employees Help Positive

Organizational Change? Impact of Psychological Capital and Emotions on Relevant

Attitudes and Behaviours. The Journal of Applied Behavioural Science, 44, 48-70.

Doi: 10.1177/0021886307311470

Blau, P. M. (1964). Exchange and power in social life. New York: Wiley

Byren, M. (2010). Structural Equation Modeling with AMOS. Basic Concepts, Applications,

and Programming (2nd. Edition). New York: Routledge.

Caza, A., McCarter, M. W., Hargrove, D., & Wad, S. R. (2009). Third party effects of

Psychological Capital: Observer attributions and responses. Academy of Management

Proceedings, 1-6. Doi: 10.5465/AMBPP.2009.44265238

Chiang, C. F., & Hsieh, T. S. (2012). The impacts of perceived organizational support and

psychological empowerment on job performance: The mediating effects of

organizational citizenship behavior. International Journal of Hospitality

Management, 31(1), 180–190. Doi:10.1016/j.ijhm.2011.04.011

Chuang, C. H., & Liao, H. (2010). Strategic human resource management in service context:

Taking care of business by taking care of employees and customers. Personnel

Psychology, 63, 153-196. Doi: 10.1111/j.1744-6570.2009.01165.x

Colakoglu, U., Culha, O., & Atay, H. (2010). The effects of perceived organisational support

on employees’ affective outcomes: evidence from the hotel industry. Tourism and

Hospitality Management, 16(2), 125-150. Doi: 640.4:658.3.560

Cropanzano, R., & Byrne, Z. S. (2000). Workplace justice and the dilemma of organizational

citizenship. In M. VanVugt, T. Tyler, & A. Biel (Eds.), Collective problems in

modern society: Dilemmas and solutions (pp. 142–161). London: Routledge.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/264457335

Duffy, J. A, & Lilly, J. (2013). Do individual needs moderate the relationships between

organizational citizenship behavior, organizational trust and perceived organizational

support? Journal of Behavioral & Applied Management, 14, 185-197.

http://www.ibam.com/pubs/jbam/articles/vol14/No3/Article%204_Duffy_%20after%

20assistant%20editor.pdf.

Eisenberger, R., Huntington, R., Hutchison, S., & Sowa, D. (1986). Perceived organizational

support. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71, 500-507. 0021-9010/86/$00.75

Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with

unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 48,

39-50. Doi: 10.2307/3151312

Golestaneh, S. M. (2014). The Relationship between Psychological Capital and

Organizational Citizenship Behavior. Management and Administrative Sciences

Review 3(7), 1165-1173. e-ISSN: 2308-1368

Hair, J., Black, W., Babin, B., & Anderson, R. (2010). Multivariate data analysis (Seventh

Ed.). New Jersey: Prentice-Hall. Inc.

Hui, Q., Cao, X., Lou, L., & He, H. (2014). Empirical research on the influence of

organizational support on psychological capital. American Journal of Industrial and

Business Management, 4(4), 1015-1027. Doi:10.4236/ajibm.2014.44025

Jain, A. K., Giga, S. I., & Cooper, C. L. (2013). Perceived organizational support as a

moderator in the relationship between organisational stressors and organizational

citizenship behaviors. International Journal of Organizational Analysis, 21(3), 313-

334. Doi:10.1108/IJOA-Mar-2012-0574

James, L. R., Choi, C. C., Ko, C. E., McNeil, P. K., Minton, M. K., Wright, M. A., & Kim,

K. (2008). Organizational and psychological climate: A review of theory and

research. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 17(1), 5-32.

Doi:10.1080/13594320701662550

Jebeli, M. J., & Etebarian, A. (2015). Perceived Organizational Support and Organizational

Citizenship Behavior. MAGNT Research Report, 3(4), 153-158. Doi:14.9831/1444-

8939.2015/3-4/MAGNT.15

Kim, K. Y., Eisenberger, R., & Baik, K. (2016). Perceived organizational support and

affective organizational commitment: Moderating influence of perceived

organizational competence. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 7(4), 558–583. Doi:

10.1002/job.2081

Konovsky, M. A., & Pugh, S. D. (1994). Citizenship behavior and social exchange. Academy

of Management Journal, 37(3), 656-669. Doi: 10.2307/256704

Kline, R. B. (2010). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (3rd ed.). New

York: Guilford Press.

LePine, J. A., Erez, A., & Johnson, D. E. (2002). The nature and dimensionality of

organizational citizenship behavior: A critical review and meta-analysis. Journal

Applied Psychology, 87, 52-65. PMID: 11916216

Luthans, F. (2002). Positive organizational behavior: Developing and managing

psychological strengths. Academy of Management Executive, 16(1), 57-72.

http://www.jstor.org/stable/4165814

Luthans, F., Avolio, B. J., Avey, J. B., & Norman, S. M. (2007). Positive psychological

capital: Measurement and relationship with performance and satisfaction. Personnel

Psychology, 60(3), 541-572. Doi:10.1111/j.1744-6570.2007.00083.x

Luthans, F., & Youssef, C. M. (2004). Human, social, and now positive psychological capital

management: Investing in people for competitive advantage. Organizational

Dynamics, 33(2), 143-160. Doi:10.1016/j.orgdyn.2004.01.003

Luthans, F., Youssef, C. M., & Avolio, B. J. (2007) Psychological capital. New York, NY:

Oxford University Press.

Marsh, H. W., & Hau, K. T. (1996). Assessing goodness of fit: Is parsimony always

desirable? Journal of Experimental Education, 64, 364-390. Doi:10.1080/00220973.1996.10806604

Martíneza, R. N., & Tindalea, R. S. (2015). Impact of Organizational Citizenship Behavior

on Performance in Women's Sport Teams. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology,

27(2), 200-215. Doi:10.1080/10413200.2014.978045

Muhammad, A. H. (2014). Perceived Organizational Support and Organizational Citizenship

Behavior: The Case of Kuwait. International Journal of Business Administration,

5(3), 59-72. Doi:10.1.1.848.6107

Nandan, T., & Azim, A. M. M. (2015). Organizational Justice and Organizational Citizenship

Behavior: Mediating Role of Psychological Capital. American International Journal

of Social Science, 4(6), 148-156. ISSN 2325-4149

Norman, S. M., Avey, J. B., Nimnicht, J. L., & Pigeon, N. G. (2010).The interactive effects

of psychological capital and organizational identity on employee OCB and deviance

behavior. Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies, 17(4), 380-391. Doi:

10.1177/1548051809353764

O’Driscoll, M. P., & Randall, D. M. (1999). Perceived organizational support, satisfaction

with rewards, and employee job involvement and organizational commitment.

Applied Psychology: An Interview Review, 48(2), 197-209. Doi:10.1111/j.1464-

0597.1999.tb00058.x/

Organ, D. W. (1988). Organizational citizenship behavior: The good soldier syndrome. USA:

D.C. Heath and Company

Organ, D. W. (1997). Organizational citizenship behavior: It's construct clean-up time.

Human Performance, 10(2), 85-97. Doi:10.1207/s15327043hup1002_2

Organ, D. W., & Paine, J. B. (1999). A new kind of performance for industrial and

organizational psychology: Recent contributions to the study of organizational

citizenship behavior. International Review of Industrial and Organizational

Psychology, 14, 337-368. Doi: 1999-02322-008

Organ, D. W., & Ryan, K. (1995). A meta-analytic review of attitudinal and dispositional

predictors of organizational citizenship behavior. Personnel Psychology, 48, 775-802.

Doi:10.1111/j.1744-6570.1995.tb01781.x

Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Paine, J. B., & Bachrach, D. G. (2000). Organizational

citizenship behaviors: A critical review of the theoretical and empirical literature and

suggestions for future research. Journal of Management, 26(3), 513-563.

Doi:10.1.1.458.7073.

Podsakoff, N. P., Whiting, S. W., Podsakoff, P. M., & Blume, B. D. (2009). Individual- and

organizational-level consequences of organizational citizenship behaviors: A

metaanalysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94(1), 122-141. Doi: 10.1037/a0013079

Pradhan, R. K., Jena, L. K., & Bhattacharya, P. (2016). Impact of psychological capital on

organizational citizenship behavior: Moderating role of emotional intelligence.

Cogent Business & Management, 3(1), 1-16. Doi: 10.1080/23311975.2016.1194174

Qadeer, F., & Jaffery, H. (2014). Mediation of Psychological Capital between Organizational

Climate and Organizational Citizenship Behavior. Pakistan Journal of Commerce and

Social Sciences, 8(2), 453- 470. SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2483656

Ranjbar, M., Zamani, H., & Amiri, N. (2014). The study on relationship between

organizational citizenship behavior and organizational productivity. International

Conference on Arts, Economics and Management (ICAEM'14) March 22-23, Dubai

(UAE). Doi:10.15242/ICEHM.ED0314031 9

Rhoades, L., & Eisenberger, R. (2002). Perceived organizational support: A Review of the

literature. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 698-714. Doi:10.1.1.561.8147

Rhoades, L., Eisenberger, R., & Armeli, S. (2001). Affective commitment to the

organization: The contribution of perceived organizational support. Journal of

Applied Psychology, 86, 825-836. Doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.86.5.825

Sidra, S., Imran, B., & Adnan, A. (2016). Moderating role of psychological capital between

perceived organizational support and organizational citizenship behavior and its

dimensions. International Journal of Research Studies in Psychology, 5(2), 41-50.

Doi: 10.5861/ijrsp.2016.1375

Sihag, P., & Sarikwal, L. (2015) Effect of perceived organizational support on psychological

capital - A study of IT industries in Indian framework. Electronic Journal of Business

Ethics and Organization Studies, 20(2), 19-26. Doi: 123456789/47876

Spector, P. E., & Che, X. X. (2014). Re-examining citizenship: how the control of

measurement artifacts affects observed relationships of organizational citizenship

behavior and organizational variables. Human Performance, 27(2), 165-182.

Doi:10.1080/08959285.2014.882928

Singh, A. K., & Singh, S. (2013). Perceived organisational support and organisational

citizenship behaviour: The mediating role of personality. Journal of the Indian

Academy of Applied Psychology, 39(1), 117-125. Doi:264235815

Shahnawaz, M. G., & Jafri, M. H. (2009). Psychological Capital as Predictors of

Organizational citizenship behavior and Organizational Citizenship Behaviour.

Journal of the Indian Academy of Applied Psychology, 35, 78-84. medind.nic.in/jak/t09/s1/jakt09s1p78.

Wayne, S. J., Shore, L. M., Bommer, W. H., & Tetrick, L. E. (2002). The role of fair

treatment and rewards in perceptions of organizational support member exchange.

Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 590-598. PMID: 12090617

Williams, L. J., & Anderson, S. E. (1991). Job satisfaction and organizational citizenship

behavior as predictors of organizational citizenship and in-role behaviors. Journal of

Management, 17(3), 601-617. Doi:10.1177/014920639101700305